Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violatin of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits).  The Appeals Panel held that the defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did not intelligently and understandingly waive her rights when entering into a guilty plea.  The Court also reasoned that, in the civil context, the denial of a motion to vacate or modify a judgment is within the discretion of the trial justice and will only be reversed on a showing of abuse of discretion or other error of law.  Thus, the Court held that the hearing justice did not abuse his discretion as he was only under the duty to inform the defendant of the statutory fine and took the extra step to warn the defendant of a license suspension.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation.